Greenhouse gas levels hit 'troubling milestone'

May 31, 2012 by SETH BORENSTEIN

In this image released by NOAA, Chris Carparelli, adjusts a glass flask that line the walls of an air sample processing room at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., Wednesday, May 30, 2012. Researchers at the lab measure the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in air sent in weekly from sites that are part of an international cooperative air sampling network. The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollution. Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace, having years ago blown by the 350 mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. So far only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will soon follow. (AP Photo/NOAA, Will von Dauster)

(AP)  The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.

Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.

So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.

"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this, and we're still in trouble."

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.

For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.

It's been at least 800,000 years  probably more  since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.

Until now.

Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.

So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.

Globally, the average carbon dioxide level is about 395 parts per million but will pass the 400 mark within a few years, scientists said.

The Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air and effects, said Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA scientist.

"This is the first time the entire Arctic is that high," he said.

Tans called reaching the 400 number "depressing," and Butler said it was "a troubling milestone."

"It's an important threshold," said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."

Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said.

Tans said the readings show how much the Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons in 2011, up 3.2 percent, the International Energy Agency announced last week.

The agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas levels.

"The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400 ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders  with a few honorable exceptions  are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former Vice President Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not understand or forgive them."

But political dynamics in the United States mean there's no possibility of significant restrictions on man-made greenhouse gases no matter what the levels are in the air, said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute.

"These milestones are always worth noting," said economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.

He contends temperatures have not risen since 1998, which was unusually hot.

Temperature records contradict that claim. Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998, and the entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA.

Related Stories

Recent climate modeling has shown that reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would give the Earth a wetter climate in the short term. New research from Carnegie Global Ecology scientists Long Cao ...

(AP) -- Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.

Researchers studying a period of high carbon dioxide levels and warm climate several million years ago have concluded that slow changes such as melting ice sheets amplified the initial warming caused by greenhouse ...

The global growth in carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels was 4 times greater in the period between 2000 to 2005 than in the preceding 10 years, say scientists gathering in Beijing today for an international conference ...

NOAA's updated Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which measures the direct climate influence of many greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, shows a continued steady upward trend that began with the Industrial ...

Yosemite National Park is bracing for its driest year on record, with visitor bureaus downplaying the allure of the park's most famous waterfall and instead touting the park as a destination for hiking, bicycling and photography.

A new stream-based monitoring system recently discovered high levels of methane in a Pennsylvania stream near the site of a reported Marcellus shale gas well leak, according to researchers at Penn State and the U.S. Geological ...

A team led by Washington State University researchers has found that methane emissions from local natural gas distribution systems in cities and towns throughout the U.S. have decreased in the past 20 years ...

In the first-of-its-kind study of the environmental effects of hydropeaking, that is releasing water at hydropower dams to meet peak daily electricity demand, two University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers ...

User comments : 63

Why are articles about AGW almost always heavily peppered with "Scientists say..." type of wording. This article has about 23 such instances. Typical brainwashing type of strategy. Just give us the hard facts, and forget most of the overdone commentary.

They name the Agency/institute/scientists responsible for a study because they have to. If they state something as fact, the source of the fact is usually mentioned as well. It also makes it easy to check the credibility of a source.

I have always been impressed by the fact that environmentalism is strongly rooted in science, and have always been amused by the fact that the Conservative ideology has always been rooted in denial of that science.

This article does seem to be way more fluff than substance. Here appears to be the entire reason of this value being a milestone:

"It's been at least 800,000 years probably more since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.Until now."

With out knowing what the levels were before and after the 800,000 year mark, and what the effects were back then, this article is pretty meaningless. It does seem to be an article about scientists' opinions on a measured value.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are well known at least up to 800,000 years through the direct sampling of those levels from trapped air bubbles left in glacial ice.

Vendicar_Decarian, thank you for the link. If the article presented any of that data, I would have no complaint. I come here to educate myself, and find it difficult to do with such a poor article.

The article does not provide enough data for me to be able to make my own conclusions. The article states a claim: "400 ppm CO2 is a milestone", and then provides scientists' testimony and nearly no data as to WHY it is a milestone. It appears in reading that it is a milestone because it is a large round number and that we haven't seen this concentration in 800,000 years.

http://pubs.acs.o...tw1.htmlThe link above makes the same claim (from 7 years ago) and has explanation of processes and numbers that I can use to learn why it is claimed. A much better article IMO.

"For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed."

In other words, the cities are such a bad problem we're ignoring their horrible impact and blaming everyone when it is really the city people who need to get their act together.

I live in the country. I'm a net carbon sequester by a long, long ways. I make up for people like Al Gore who fly around in their big jets, drive around in their big cars and have huge houses and heated pools. Now I just wish he would shut up and start walking the walk.

Vendicar_Decarian were all gonna die - of old age warm in our beds. Your so full of doom and gloom, you remind me of those religious fanatics with the bill boards - repent before it's to late!You should try so real research with an open mind!!!

How is carbon dioxide a pollutant. We and the animals and plants around us exist due to carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, our body is built from and needs food (plants) from carbon dioxide. We burn food and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we need to inhale, so carbon dioxide is green energy. Carbon from carbon dioxide forms the carbon hydrates, fat and proteins we need to builds our body down to our DNA.

In other words, the cities are such a bad problem we're ignoring their horrible impact and blaming everyone when it is really the city people who need to get their act together.

I'd say this can cut both ways. Cities have higher concentrations of pollution, but we'd need per capita comparisons that take transport into account. Cities can have a lot of efficiencies that may cut down on emissions, esp. CO2. I imagine cities with good mass transit, powered by renewable energy, are far "cleaner" per capita than rural areas. Rural areas may also have higher pollution per capita due to infrastructure build/maintenance (roads, etc.) and other factors.

One area where (in the US) rural folk deserve quite a lot of blame: voting for politicians who oppose action to curb CO2 emissions, boost restrictions on coal, incentivize clean energy, eliminate oil subsidies, etc. Hell, Republicans are currently trying to stop the military from using biofuels!

Nice try, care to post something that hasn't been debunked or cherrypicked? Go to the source site (http://ncdc.noaa....na.html) and put an earlier start date. Say, anything before 1992?

Of course if you pick one of the hottest years on record and end with a cooler year you'll get a downward trend. Of course, since weather varies, and temperatures should vary annually, what you really need is some sort of rolling decadal trend. Hmm, I wonder why the deniers never use that sort of data to prove their point?

If they were 1.5F to 2F warmer it would be in headlines 10 inches tall.

NP,

Your specious argument has been blown up at least a dozen times in the past two months or so right here in the comment threads of PHYSorg. Yet you still advance them, which makes you an ideologue, and therefore irrational.

Yes, you provide sources of variously "Adjusted" data, even though none of those sources bother to note in what way they have adjusted the data to provide the false conclusion they intend the viewer to reach. This is their sole purpose in publishing this junk, masquerading as objective science --to lead the viewer to false conclusions.

Yes, you provide sources of variously "Adjusted" data, even though none of those sources bother to note in what way they have adjusted the data to provide the false conclusion they intend the viewer to reach. This is their sole purpose in publishing this junk, masquerading as objective science --to lead the viewer to false conclusions.

Cities have higher concentrations of pollution, but we'd need per capita comparisons

No, it is not a per capita question. It is an absolute question. How much pollution is being produced and who is producing it? The first answer is too much (according to these scientists) and the second answer is cities. I, and other people in rural areas, am sequestering the carbon, and other pollutants, from the city. My carbon footprint is deeply negative. I'm making up for the cities as hard as I can. Until the city people face up to their responsibilities and stop polluting they'll just keep making noise about round numbers while jacking it higher. Per Capita is a mere distraction.

Also nice to know that since 1950 global temperatures are about .5 Celsius higher.That's very close to not significant.

J.

Are you insane? We only need a 2C rise in temp for the bulk of methane hydrate to be released. Last time that happened 90% of life on earth died out.

It's not like that .5C is just added to every day of the year evenly. It's a long term average which I believe is the low estimate of warming since the industrial revolution with the high estimates being 1.5C.

There have already been instances of methane hydrates boiling up in the oceans and from the bogs of siberia. If you don't believe in AGW then why do you even come here. Go tell your idiot cohorts and whoever else is dumb enough to believe you, not intelligent people who trust in real objective data.

I mean, I believe in aliens but I don't go around trying to proselytize uninterested people.

Virtually never do you provide sources, and where you do we find that those "sources" are comic books, ConsrvaTard blogs written by nobodies, and occasionally industry propaganda groups like the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation who are on the payroll of the Carbon Industry and paid to lie to the American people.

"It's an important threshold," said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."

I'm supposed to be impressed by a Nobel Peace Prize? Like Obama getting the Peace Prize and of course Yasser Arafat. The article just appeals to authority as a substitute for science.

Why is 400 so important? Why not 431 1/2? The arbitrary choice of a number shows there is no science for that number. It's just something used for emotional effect. If the current concentration were 399.95 we'd all feel much safer, right?

"It's an important threshold," said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."

I'm supposed to be impressed by a Nobel Peace Prize? Like Obama getting the Peace Prize and of course Yasser Arafat. The article just appeals to authority as a substitute for science.

Why is 400 so important? Why not 431 1/2? The arbitrary choice of a number shows there is no science for that number. It's just something used for emotional effect. If the current concentration were 399.95 we'd all feel much safer, right?

Why? Because they say so and we're supposed to believe them because we're too stupid to understand. Besides, if we disagree they'll set the attack dogs like Vendicar and his thug mates onto us and we'll be sorry, you'll see. This isn't science. It's fascist propaganda.

We suggest equal emphasis on an alternative, more optimistic, scenario. This scenario focuses on reducing non-CO2 GHGs and black carbon during the next 50 years. Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming.

400 ppm is historic because an amazing amount of time and money was spent looking for a political and commercial solution to the problem of increasing carbon emissions, specifically based on models that predicted levels at various projections into the future. We now know that those projections were conservative, the carbon is building faster than the projection's average prediction. Thats all. As for the direct effect of carbon dioxide, the arctic ice is melting. The melting ice exposes more sea surface which absorbs more heat, which melts more ice. This feedback is logical and predictable, and there is no good reason to suggest that it will not continue to unfold in this way until all the ice is melted. Gentlemen, revise your theories. Permafrost is going to melt. The Earth is getting hotter. -No money was made in the writing of this post.

The significance of 400 is that we should expect CO2 to rise faster, and higher, than previously thought. The psychology is obvious to anyone who understands the difference between 20.99 years old and 21, or January 1st from Dec. 31st, or DOW under 9,999 vs. over 10,000. The point is that it has occurred, and there is no indication the trend will reverse. It is pointing toward a logical outcome: more heat-trapping CO2. More of the same melting ice, melting permafrost. This ain't no party- it ain't no disco- it ain't no fooling around.

There is no specific significance to the number 400 other than it being a convenient sign post on the road to oblivion

VD's oblivion.

Where you can heat your homes in the winter and afford to eat too.

He wants that ended. He wants brownouts and blackouts when the wind doesn't blow. He wants you to have to sell your home to afford your electrical bill. He wants ALL the jobs to move to China and India. Not just the 20 million so far.

He wants rich landowners to get richer because they have a subsidy farm occasionally making electricity on their land.

Why are articles about AGW almost always heavily peppered with "Scientists say..." type of wording. This article has about 23 such instances. Typical brainwashing type of strategy. Just give us the hard facts, and forget most of the overdone commentary.

Seriously, did you mean to say "....about 2-3 such instances"??? Because your math isn't in sync with the reality of the article.

Besides that, it's a bit silly to knock the writer for using "scientists say". Because a) it's difficult to write an article of any type, b) it's really difficult to write an interesting article about this overly-hyped topic and c) "scientists" actually DO say exactly what the author suggests.

If ParkerTard is interested in Americans being able to eat, he should be very concerned with the ongoing desertification of the U.S. grain belt due to Global Warming, and the unsustainable drawdown of global fish stocks from overexploitation of that resource.

"Where you can heat your homes in the winter and afford to eat too." - ParkerTard

But since ParkerTard favors unsustainable fishing and unsustainable rates of CO2 emissions, it can be concluded that he has no interest in Americans having enough food.

If ParkerTard is interested in Americans being able to eat, he should be very concerned with the ongoing desertification of the U.S. grain belt due to Global Warming,

Well, we do know the fictional scary story of "global" warming has caused the USA to use 40% of its corn crop as fuel for cars -- as long as there were massive subsidies available to keep the deficit growing.